"TO A MAN LIKE TUCKER, THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH TEARING DOWN A BUILDING OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OR A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE BUILT HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO IN ORDER TO ERECT A STRIP MALL, AND A MCDONALD’S, SO LONG AS IT’S DONE WITH IN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FREE MARKET..."

-RICHARD HEATHEN

ON ALT-RIGHT IDEOLOGY: A RESPONSE TO JEFFREY TUCKER

PUBLISHED: 21st August, 2018 | By Richard Heathen

Jeffrey Tucker, establishment libertarian writer and political gadfly recently penned a piece about the ideology of the Alt-Right. Tucker’s diagnosis is that the ideas of the dissident right are rightwing Hegelian and cites a list of prolific thinkers:

I’d be lying if I said I was familiar with the work of everyone of these writers, but Tucker does list two of my favourites, Julius Evola, and Oswald Spengler. (I co-host a podcast with Augustus Invictus named in honour of Spengler, and themed after his work titled The Spengler Chronicles) I’m also familiar with Francis Parker Yockey, who Tucker for some reason can’t resist slandering. Yockey is a fascinating character who’s later life and death are surrounded in mystery. Francis Parker Yockey was a lawyer on the Nuremberg trials and unceremoniously quit when he realized that Nuremberg had nothing to do with actual law, but was simply a show trial put on by the allies to justify themselves. Yockey reportedly had an abnormally high IQ of 170.

I don’t speak for the entire dissident right, but I would like to respond to Tucker’s comments and perhaps correct some of the distortions he makes of the far right in his piece. Tucker claims that we seek conflict not harmony:

​“The social order cannot be left to the devices of Individual choice; it must acquiesce to forces of history that are more powerful than the randomness of human volition. These historical forces are the major player in revealing intractable conflict alive in the world. What is this conflict? Over many decades and centuries, the narrative would change. The struggle could be between classes, nations, languages, religions, sexes, mental abilities – really you can take your pick depending on the time and place. The agent that would harness the conflict and make it right would be the state..”

Individual should absolutely have property rights and be free from having their substance eaten away by excessive taxation, but there needs to be a greater ideal to guide the morality of a civilization than the non-aggression principle (NAP).What libertarians such as Tucker don't take in to account is that often times there are opportunity costs associated with individual action, costs which are imposed upon a third party. The effects are disastrous to the cultural commons, especially when these costs are amplified through being imposed repeatedly by millions of people. Let’s focus on one example of individual action becoming all too common in the modern world; licentiousness and irresponsibly bringing children into the world, then raising them as a single parent. For the purpose of this article we’ll focus specifically on single mothers. Statistically children of single mothers do worse on every measurable factor: mental health, drug use, criminal behaviour, promiscuity etc. This imposes a cost on to the rest of society. In this case, a situation has been created where, statistically, one has drastically increased the likelihood that a suboptimal child with more problems will be produced for the rest of society to deal with, and that imposes a cost on the societal commons. What for? To satisfy lust? How exactly would this hypothetical female support their offspring? Likely by voting for politicians who will give financial benefits, which undoubtedly will come at the expense of the more responsible members of society.

Now, one person’s licentiousness and irresponsible breeding is hardly going to bring down civilization, but when it escalates to millions, you’re a fool if you don’t think that it’s going to create problems on a civilizational scale, and that requires a solution, whether through state power or other means.

The point is; one can impose costs, and parasitism on others without initiating force. Not only is the NAP insufficient to be the bedrock of a moral philosophy, it’s detrimental. By taking initiatory force off the table, you’re removing the disincentive of many individuals and groups to not impose costs and engage in parasitism. Negative externalities exist, at times, because of individual action. Most libertarians don't see that.

​The Jeffrey Tuckers of the world opine about the fact that someone might get “steamrolled by the state”, but sometimes certain individuals need to be steamrolled for the sake of a healthy and functioning polity. Unfortunately, violence is the only thing that will create a better world. It's the only way to stamp out the rampant parasitism of people that hate whites. They want to disenfranchise you, your kin, subjugate your children, and ultimately erase us all from history.

We all get to make choices, but at the end of the day our choices are limited by the existing circumstances we find ourselves in, whether that’s in our families, economic status, or the political circumstance of our time and place in history, and we don’t have the right to demand that our nation surrender it’s sovereignty, it’s identity it’s traditions or demographic make up so we can indulge our every urge in the name of freedom. Liberty can’t exist in a vacuum, it requires the right conditions, a high trust polity with a low demand for state power. The more civil unrest (which is created through multiculturalism) the higher the demand will be for state power. When cosmopolitan libertarians call for open borders, the destruction of tradition, feminism and multiculturalism, they are actually creating a demand for state power, thus undermining the very social order they wish to create, while robbing others of the benefits of a high trust cultural commons.

Tucker seems to scoff at the reality of human struggle, but humans have found themselves foisted into conflicts that they didn’t start or want any part of all throughout history. That, however, isn’t their choice, their only choice is what to do in the circumstances they find themselves. The entirety of human history is one group of people invading, conquering and subjugating another group. Most of the people in these circumstances didn’t have the sovereign power to make these decisions themselves, but simply had to make a choice on their course of action based on their circumstances.

Even most of those on the invading army had little choice. Sometimes, they had a choice whether to voluntarily join, sometimes not. Regardless, if they voluntarily joined the force of the invading army (a choice not given to all), it’s not as if the question of each individual’s involvement in the military would determine whether the military conflict would happen or not. Many libertarians, especially those who identify as ‘anarchists’ or ‘voluntarists’, would state that if everyone refused to join the armed forces then these military campaigns just wouldn’t happen. I would respond with the very libertarian argument that people respond to incentives. The incentives existed for them to join, so that’s what they did. What we recognize is, that while of course individuals have choice, and agency, that their course of action is restricted by their time and place in history.

Human beings have an innate will to power. We instinctively dominate our environment to make it more advantageous for us so we can both live and thrive. That domination extends to other humans. Utopians of all stripes try to create havens where we can escape this fact, but if you don’t believe me, just take a look at history. Throughout all human history, human beings have organized themselves intoterritorial monopolies, waged wars, and governed through some form of dominance hierarchy. The sad truth of human existence is that periods of peace and prosperity are relatively short in the history of the world. World history is of violent conflict, this is not a “narrative” as Tucker suggests, and the fact is the conflicts between different groups of people battling for power shifts and changes with the times.

Tucker then goes on to explain his interpretation of what ‘right Hegelians’ believe.

“First, they reject social harmony in favor of the friend/enemy distinction…”

For starters, the dissident right does not “reject social harmony”, what we do understand however is that not all groups and people’s are interchangeable automatons to be used by the global economy. Different people’s have different interests, based on their beliefs, group evolutionary strategies, and cultural heritage. Culture matters, religion matters, ethnicity matters. We take these truths in to account when we theorize on how to construct a healthy social order. Unfortunately different groups have opposing interests, which is what leads to conflict. For example, the Jews and Muslims have a mutually exclusive claim to what they consider holy lands in the Middle East. There’s no win-win solution in this situation, it’s a zero-sum game. The only answer would be to try and convince the Jews and Muslims to abandon their religious faiths, which would be completely ridiculous for anyone to suggest, because their respective faiths and identities give their lives meaning and orientation in the world, one which many would die to defend.

“…Which they believe brings essential drama to the course of what would otherwise be a boring life. There must be struggles. There must be battles…”

It’s not that we believe, “There must be battles. There must be struggles”, it’s simply the fact that, objectively, there are. Men like Tucker don’t seem to understand that, because they don’t seem to understand anything beyond an economic view of life. It baffles them that people might be willing to fight, and do die, for something higher then that.

“There must be war and violence. To take part is what gives life meaning…”

While economic security matters, it’s not enough for a happy, meaningful life.Suicide rates are higher in many affluent and industrialized countries than in some of the poorest countries. If economic prosperity were the key to a fulfilled and happy life one would think the suicide rates would be lowest in the richest most developed countries. Instead there seems to be little to no correlation between the level of economic prosperity of a nation and it’s rate of suicide, and that some economically prosperous nations seem to have a relatively high suicide rate. In America, more people die from suicide than by car accident. How can this be? This suggests that there needs to be more to ones life than the mechanical pursuit of wealth. There needs to be more, a higher purpose.

This doesn’t mean that one needs to fight a great war to have meaning or a higher purpose in one’s life. One could be an explorer, an inventor, or even an entrepreneur. These more bourgeois vocations certainly can provide meaning in one’s life, so too can meaningful work, but existential struggle is a historical constant, and sitting out as a conscientious objector, won’t change that, only ensure that you’ll have no say in the outcome.

Despite more and more gadgets, trinkets, and distractions, more and more people are feeling unfulfilled, craving adventure, meaning and purpose. The recent event of Richard Russell aka The Sky King, shows as much. Mr. Russel was a baggage handler who was so fed up with the monotony of his day to day job, and meaningless materialist existence that he decided to steal an empty passenger plane and fly around, living as a free man for an hour, before intentionally crashing the plane in an unpopulated area, ending his life.

There comes a time when a system becomes unjust and needs to be overthrown. I’m curious at what point Jeffrey Tucker believes force and existential struggle is justified against the system? (We’ll talk more about that later).

“Third, trade protectionism is central because the things we use and the services we consume need to reinforce our attachment to nationhood. Free trade is too random to tolerate. Plus free trade lessens our attachment to the leader.”

Tucker is projecting his own mindset and prejudices on to his opponents here. Defining one’s identity by what they consume is something that is unique to the soulless and materialist anti-culture of modernity, and is an example of the shallow and destructive mindset to which the dissident right is opposed.

Free trade between nations is all well and good so long as it’s beneficial to the habitants of both nations, and not just to globalists and other rootless cosmopolitans who have ties to neither nation. This is another example where Tucker exposes his myopic worldview. To him there’s no such thing as an organic nation with a rich heritage and high trust commons. No, to the Tuckers of the world there’s only atomized individuals pursuing their own rational self interests through commerce and trade, who are only held back by such anachronistic ties to concepts such as family, tribe and nation. To a man like Tucker, there’s nothing wrong with tearing down a building of historical importance or a beautiful piece of architecture built hundreds of years ago in order to erect a strip mall, and a McDonald’s, so long as it’s done with in the parameters of the free market.

Because of this incredibly materialistic point of view, it’s unsurprising that he would project such a twisted and bizarre objection to free trade on to his political opponents. The fact is people on the dissident right don’t object to so called free trade because of the basis of these objections, but because of effect. It’s fairly uncontroversial to say that on a whole capitalism produces the most material wealth out of all economic systems, but at what cost? If the cost of opulent wealth is the erosion of a once high trust polity, and degradation of the culture, it shouldn’t be surprising that many people might come to the conclusion that the squeeze isn’t worth the juice.

Nor should we just automatically embrace all instances of so called free trade on some ideological principle, a nations people need to look at each instance of trade and ask if it’s in the national interest. The purpose of trade is to make the economic lives of people better, but if trade deals are imposing costs on to the members of the nation, and weakening it from within, then that can’tstand.

When it comes to campaigns that encourage consumers to buy products that are made domestically, this is just an attempt to support businesses that are part of the national tribe, and thus share an alignment of interests through being part of the same nation. After all, the state of the nation has a direct effect on the quality of life of all of us. While some within the nation will undoubtedly have conflicting interests, especially in the sphere of economics, all members of a nation are tied together in some way. If a recession hits in one nation, the majority of it’s inhabitants will be in some way effected. That effect multiplies exponentially in the event of a war.

“Which leads to, fourth, the leadership principle. The leader must be strong and compel assent. He is the central organizer whether in peace or war. He embodies the nation, instantiating the will of the people and their national identity. He must have a great story of overcoming every obstacle to triumph over all.”

Wrong. What we do advocate however, is rule by the competent instead of mob rule and placation of stupidity by pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is the outcome of majoritarian democracy. As we discussed earlier because of the innate drive for power within human beings, there’s always going to be rulers. Taking that into account, it stands to reason that the most competent should rule, instead of the whims of the mob, and if the state is going to be occupied by the most competent men, then the best among them should occupy the top position.

I suppose this is probably Tucker’s idea of anti-authoritarianism. I mean all the big bad guys in history were leaders who built a cult of personality around themselves from both right to left. Jeffrey Tucker’s living in the past, however. The tyrants of today aren’t outspoken glorious leaders who inspire revolutionary movements. No, the tyrants of today are faceless bureaucrats, politicians, police officers, and other agents of the system. This is the modern face of tyranny, faceless agents of the Cathedral, who use quiet technological means to shut out opinions they find distasteful, by terminating accountsguilty of so called ‘hate speech’. This has been going on for awhile, but has accelerated in the wake of the Unite The Right rally last August.

First it was the organizers of Unite The Right like Chris Cantwell, and Augustus Invictus, who were de-personed. Cantwell was taken off all social media including Facebook, Twitter, had his PayPal account, AirBnB, and even his Ok Cupid account removed. They then came for the edgier members of the Alt-Right. GoDaddy removed the hosting for the Daily Stormer, which went through a dozen hosting platforms and was driven to the dark web before finally finding a domain and hosting service that would allow them to remain on the normal internet. Soon after that GoDaddy shutdown the much less controversial website AltRight.com. Then the Cathedral came for Alex Jones. Shutting down his accounts on Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify on the same day, in a blatant display of power, that can only be interpreted as a message. None of this concerns Tucker because he’s too busy kvetching about Trump being “L I T E R A L L Y H I T L E R”.

I find it rich to view Tucker’s pearl clutching about the scary ideology of the Alt-Right. This is the same guy who said the ’Deep state is better than the Trump state’. What evil things has Trump done? He’s lowered taxes, not pursued regime change in Syria, and said mean true things about the media and other deserving targets, and worked to secure the US border. To Tucker, apparently this is much worse than peddling false intel to justify invasions overseas, assassinations, drone strikes and effectively wiretapping the entire US. Tucker says all that’s worse than Trump, because feelz, or something.

“Fifth, an essential part of the right Hegelian vision is rooted in demographic panic and opposition to the randomness of human reproduction. For them, there is always some crisis going on beyond our immediate control. The white race is disappearing. Christianity is dying. English is no longer normative. Manhood is disappearing. Nothing is made in America anymore. The wrong people are getting rich. The Jews are taking over.”

Notice Tucker doesn’t take the time to debate any of these points. You’re just automatically EVIL if you notice any of this, and happen to have a problem with it. The fact is, whites are becoming minorities in their own countries. This isn’t some arcane conspiracy theory it’s happening now. London is a minority majority city, meaning that less than half of the population are ethnic (white Anglo-Saxon) Britons, with Birmingham set to follow suit in 2021, and the rest of the UK soon after that!

The fact is demographic replacement isn’t some natural and spontaneous development of the free market, it’s a government program. Immigration policies in Western countries changed in the 1960’s and 1970’s (depending on the country) to start accepting and recruiting immigrants from the third world. The policy to allow millions of migrants from the poorest most destitute war torn parts of the world, countries with the lowest IQ, and with zero comprehension of Western values, a free pass to enter Europe was a government program. The Universities that indoctrinate students with the poisonous ideology of neo-Marxism are funded in part, by governments. The full court press of this ideology into the public school system is completely government funded. Yet, Tucker seems to think he’s Paul Revere warning his fellow Americans that “the fascists are coming, the fascists are coming!”, yeah, these same “fascists” who are universally reviled and have zero political power.

Nobody wants to be displaced in their own nations. If this state sponsored soft genocide, (it fits one of the UN definitions of genocide) was geared toward any other group in their ethnic homeland the mainstream media, and their pets - the Jeffrey Tuckers of the world - would be outraged. What is the goal of genes? To reproduce themselves. Therefore it’s not surprising that genetic similarity would translate to an alignment of interests. Members of a family are genetically similar which makes sticking together with your family a good evolutionary strategy for the survival of your genes, and genes very similar. This can be expanded to geographical areas, and historically, has been how tribe has formed, people similar in proximity and genetics. This constitutes an ingrained genetic interest. People from town A are different genetically from people in town B, but are part of X province, who are more alike to each other genetically then they are to people from Y province, who all in turn share more in common genetically with each other than they do with people from nation Z.

Before the days of the automobile people didn’t get around as much as they do today, and genetic markers can be used to determine where someone’s ancestry is from.

Christianity IS dying, society IS becoming more feminized, and well the Jews… I’ll just quote this article published shortly after Charlottesville, written by a Jewish leftist:

“What did you feel when you heard the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, chant, “Jews will not replace us?” Fear, of course. Bewilderment, perhaps anger. But I bet a lot of Jews felt another emotion, which they’re less likely to articulate in public: snobbery. “Replace you? Where, behind the counter at Wendy’s? We’re successful, industrious, upper-middle class. You’re the dregs of society. Replace you? Don’t kid yourselves. When it comes to America’s class hierarchy, we replaced you and your kind long ago.”

Today’s anti-Semitism isn’t like the anti-Semitism of 100 or even 50 years ago. Overwhelmingly, it comes not from society’s winners but from its losers. Jews no longer press their noses against the gates of restrictive country clubs, Ivy League universities or white shoe law firms. Jews no longer yearn to be accepted by America’s elite WASP families. We already are.”

So yeah…

One wonders what happened to Jeffrey Tucker, he didn’t always run cover for leftists, giving them both a platform and gainful employment. He once had a fiery rightwing streak. Here are some sample from Tuckers writings from earlier in his career:

“Everyone who lives in border areas of the country knows that illegal immigration is a major source of crime and assorted social mayhem.”

​“It is the gay lobby that is attempting to impose its will on bourgeois America by robbing them of their schools, their taxes, and their rights in order to subsidize a sexual preference. And they wonder why they are disliked by ordinary Americans!”

“The leftist producer may have intended young viewers to prefer the sweaty ethnics on the lower parts of the ship. But the kids evidently did not get the message.”

“In the dynamic of today’s campus life, anti-racist codes are not really about enforcing a kind of social etiquette, universally applied. They are about power exercised by some over others.”

“If you are deemed a racist, you must have been one forever; your racism has been unearthed and revealed, not merely spotted in a single incident. Neither is there any hope of rehabilitating you. Your whole life, your whole existence, is stained. It is a Maoist tactic to dehumanize and destroy your opponents.”

“And then a feminist rose to complain about the marginalization of women in liturgy and leadership in the Catholic church today. The speaker collapsed in fear, and answered her by mouthing a litany of cliches about sexual equality and decrying past Church practices for being insufficiently open to the contributions of women to the faith. His cowering was embarrassing.”

“Mises believed that feminism was an assertion of equality, a revolt against nature, and therefore akin to socialism; that the family and marital fidelity were essential to civilization; that it was possible to make broad generalizations and perhaps scientific statements about races and ethnic groups; that apparent racial inequalities ought to be studied, although not used to influence state policy; that "Eurocentrism" was the proper outlook; and that one need not be sympathetic to mass culture or the counterculture, as Mises emphatically was not, to support the free market.”

Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Did he just sell his soul? Is being an occasional guest on Fox Business really worth the loss of your dignity and integrity? The fact is Jeffrey Tucker has long known about the problems the Alt-Right, who he so demonizes, are trying to address.He’s either a coward or an opportunist, and either way I won’t be lectured on morality by someone who’s principles and sense of moral outrage shifts so conveniently with the times. Stay in your lane Jeffrey.

Tucker gets absolutely one thing right though, the rumours regarding the demise of the Alt-Right, (along with other factions of the dissident right) have been greatly exaggerated, and for disbelievers, I’ll tell you why:

Quite simple. The problems that gave rise to the Alt-Right, the rampant neo-Marxist take over of social institutions, mass immigration/demographic replacement, and a social acceptance, nay, encouragement of the escalating hatred towards whites, particularly white men, and Western Civilization as a whole by the dominant culture aren’t going away.